Cain we get this straight! The woman was sexually assaulted, not harassed.

[WingDinger]

What Cain did was assault. And I would like to know if he continued with any bodily movement when she objected. Such as pulling her head down.

This is NOT harassment. There is no yanking or shoving in harassment. To blur the line of harassment to include physical contact, and social and economic pressure and threats, is dangerous.

Folks, this is a sexual predator. If it is true. And I doubt it is doubtful. Not, a simple harasser.

[undeterred]

1. Sexual harassment can indeed involve physical contact

and it most certainly can involve the threat of losing your job if you do not perform sexual favors. Its called quid pro quo sexual harassment.

You obviously aren't well informed on this subject.

[WingDinger]

2. That is why I want to know if he moved after her protestation.

Where pray{prey} tell does assault start, if not in a sexual advance that yanks her head and shoves under her skirt, without the slightest inkling that he had permission?

There are pimps with better sexual manners than that.

[undeterred]

5. If we're talking about the same situation...

I do agree that it is pretty close to an assault, more like an attempted assault. In a case like that someone could report it to the police but they would not do much, as attempted assaults rarely get prosecuted. Police might just get an idea that the person was a predator; they might get involved and do something about it if the victim was a minor.

In a job interview sitution- which it seems like this was- this woman probably could have looked for someone to report it to since it seemed like he was looking for a "quid pro quo". If you put out, you will get the job. But if he was the CEO, there was probably no where to go. A lot of times its the person at the top or the head of HR who pulls shit like this and gets away with it. The woman would know that this was a place she would be sexually harassed and be wise to stay away from it. Men with a certain accumulation of power just think they can pull this shit and get away with it.

[Scuba]

8. I would disagree. Being forced to have sex to save your job goes way past harassment. ..

...I'm not sure it's assault, maybe closer to a crime against humanity.

[66 dmhlt]

41. Looking for a job, so Herman Showed Her His "Stimulus Package"

[Major Nikon]

47. The law says it's just sexual harassment

It should be a felony, but isn't.

[undeterred]

49. I'm talking about the legal definition.

Under the law its quid pro quo sexual harassment if someone consents to having sex in exchange for keeping their job or getting a job. This kind of shit goes on all the time. Its just very difficult to prove.

[whathehell]

14. Molestation and Battery,

the latter meaning "any unwanted touch" can also be part of "sexual harassment"

[WingDinger]

17. When that "TOUCH" becomes a pulling her head against resistance,

It is no longer TOUCH.

Assault does not require blood and guts.

[whathehell]

56. Um...I'm basically agreeing with you

in saying that it's more than "sexual harassment"

Beyond that, we might want to leave it to the lawyers.:eyes:

[Nye Bevan]

3. Regardless of whether he stopped when she objected, it was still sexual assault.

You don't get one free grope of any woman you want, with no penalty provided that you stop when she complains.

[WingDinger]

4. Yes indeedy, but continuing on, may skirt rape territory.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WingDinger]

10. You dont think it is relevant that he sexually assaulted a woman, and there are three more so far

that are in the wings? I said, IF IT IS TRUE.

Making haraassment include physical force, however restrained is a step backwards for women, mark my words.

[yardwork]

33. What hysteria? This is a message board. People post opinions.

If you aren't comfortable reading other people's opinions, don't.

[rhett o rick]

7. If true why werent criminal charges filed. How do perps buy their way out of actual crimes? nm

[Scuba]

9. Start with money and/or connections. n/t

[rhett o rick]

11. It was a rhetorical question. We need a "rhetorical" emoticon. nm

[Scuba]

44. Yeah, rhetorical questions tend to generate sarcasm. n/t

[WingDinger]

12. As is the case in many rapes, the women often think it would be less painful to just not report it.

[rhett o rick]

13. I understand that. However, when it comes to light that a crime has been committed why dont the

authorities step in? Of course the answer is that if the accusations are against someone rich, the authorities look the other way.

[WingDinger]

15. In this case, statute of limitations. He is being tried in the court of public opinion.

[rhett o rick]

19. Isnt it against the law to fail to report a crime? If someone fails to report a crime

because they received money, isnt that extortion?

[WingDinger]

23. Um no. Extortion is pulling her head toward the first installment on her job.

[rhett o rick]

54. I have no idea what that means. Extortion is when you take money instead of reporting a crime. nm

[WingDinger]

64. Or anything embarrassing.

[WingDinger]

16. In this case, statute of limitations. He is being tried in the court of public opinion.

[femrap]

18. I bet there are more

women he has assaulted.

May he be flaccid for eternity.

[WingDinger]

20. I think this is poetic justice, to one who is on a book tour, joke campaign.

And I especially like that the repubs made everyone endure the spotlight at least for their fifteen.

[rhett o rick]

21. I like that curse. Hope you are never mad at me. nm

[femrap]

45. You have Bernie

as your avatar so it's very doubtful!!

[rhett o rick]

53. I worry about Sen Sanders. One of the few that is fighting for the 99%. nm

[K8-EEE]

22. I don't really consider it assault, since he stopped when she asked

Sex-for-jobs happens a lot in that business - I'm sure he had some women take him up on it, doesn't make it right, but I've worked places where the (married) boss picks up some girl and she's installed in the corner office the following week.

[WingDinger]

24. So, had he shoved her head to business too fast for her to object, she is consenting?

Perhaps a gun or knife would find her amenable to the whole affair? She didnt say NO.

[seabeyond]

25. stuck hand up skirt, grabbed head and pushed down, that is not assault? really?

fuck... i cannot believe what i am hearing on du pertaining to a womans right NOT to be groped.

i mean, if he gets hand all the way up to crotch and finger in vagina before she says, NO.. that is cool?

[WingDinger]

26. Is this the Palinification of feminism?

[seabeyond]

30. i think, it is so sad. i had a conversation with my 19 yr old niece today

i have been so concerned about what i am hearing. i dont even have to have these conversations with my two teenage boys. it is pretty obvious to them.

[K8-EEE]

27. But he didn't though

IMO the word no means NO and he took it as such.....I'm sure he's had some who went along with it.

[seabeyond]

28. ok... so i am standing in line and a man stands behind me

puts hnd between my legs and and shoves his finger up my vagina.... that is ok? cause i didnt say no... yet?

[K8-EEE]

34. That wasn't the situation though was it nt

[seabeyond]

37. because the hand didnt make it quite to the crotch you are ok with it. THAT was the situation

your comment was, when she said no, it became wrong. so where i the line. grabs a tit, .... then the woman says no, he walks away? how much grabbing is a man allowed?

NO ONE is allowed to touch me in a sexual manner, EVER, without my permission. period.

[K8-EEE]

38. Well I don't know about you but in my experience a lot of this sex stuff is non-verbal

Both "asking" and "consenting" business in real life sometimes occur without written notarized contracts.

However, NO is the line not to cross and to his credit he didn't really cross that line. Don't get me wrong I think the guy is a scumbag and a serial harasser but I do not think anything criminal happened in this sordid little scene, just IMO.

[seabeyond]

39. grabbing a womans head and shoving it in his crotch is just sexual foreplay?

yea... he didnt rape her. da man.

i really do not agree with you k8. it is what it is.

[K8-EEE]

40. He was definitely asking for a blowjob but

I don't think what he did was a crime. Do you really think he should be in jail over this thing? I guess for me "assault" has a connotation of forcing, I mean do guys really say "can I have your permission to put my hand up your leg?" They just kind of do it and then you allow/encourage it or don't, is how that usually goes down, if there is any resistance when you say no, then you get into the assault area.

The more criminal aspect was "you want a job don't you?" after she refused. At that point isn't he offering a job for sex, how is that different than money for sex, which would be a crime?

[WingDinger]

42. Try spitting at a cop and they will call it assaulting an officer.

[K8-EEE]

46. Again, hardly the same situation

sigh....

[WingDinger]

65. I think it is fair to say, you are proposing getting off with a technicality, literally.

[uppityperson]

48. pulling her head down isn't "forcing"? Seriously?

Shoving her head down isn't using force? Seriously?

"I guess for me "assault" has a connotation of forcing, "

Since he shoved her head down, how does that NOT have a "connotation of forcing"?

[seabeyond]

52. courtin to some. lol. nt

[WingDinger]

32. Many years ago, I had a friend, a nice guy BUT, at nightclubs, he would

go from woman to woman at the railing around the dancefloor, groping them in succession, until he groped one that didnt object. All the women were accosted, but he stopped after each one said no. Is that hunky dory?

[Politicalboi]

43. And why would she even think she had to say no

He NEVER should have put her in that place to begin with. She wasn't there on a date, she was looking for some help getting a job. I am willing to bet there are a lot more women out there. Time will tell how many more shoes will drop.

[WingDinger]

78. NO, is a very important convention. Unless she is mute, No serves to distinguish

rape/ assault/harassment from consent. Not just for that woman and man, but to weed out non-crimes. Me personally though, I would have forced him to either shrink in horror, or cause bruising.

[Nye Bevan]

29. Again, men are not entitled to one free grope of any woman,

with no consequences if they stop when she complains.

[seabeyond]

31. oooops, grab my tit. no, thank you. but hey, thanks anyway. nt

[Nye Bevan]

36. Oh you didn't WANT me to do that? Oh well, no harm no foul (nt)

[Caretha]

50. Your are one

sick MFER!

[whathehell]

57. Wrong.....Touching anyone in an unwanted manner is ILLEGAL and can subject you to arrest.

Whatever the legal terminology -- "battery", "assault", "molestatation"...It's CRIMINAL

and subject to criminal penalties.

[Glimmer of Hope]

59. Exactly!

[whathehell]

86. Thank you....It nice to see that a remnant of sanity on the issue remains, Lol.

[noiretextatique]

83. the assault had already occurred when she asked him to stop

she did not consent to him trying to push he head into his crotch. you seem to be confused about what consent means. you are saying what he did was okay until she said stop, and that's not okay. anyone over the age of 3 should know that.

[lbrtbell]

35. This is why women need to start carrying stun guns

I do, and someone like Cain would have been doing the electric boogaloo if he had tried that kind of crap on me.

[Faryn Balyncd]

51. As Cain treats (assaults) women, so the GOP treats America . . . :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2260530

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey & Juanita Broaddrick all claimed Bill Clinton sexually assaulted

them in one form or another. Juanita Broaddrick specifically claimed violent rape.

Do you believe these accusations? Frankly I highly doubt those charges against former President Clinton in light of the evidence. And I certainly don't think it to be fair minded that some assumed guilt.

We simply don't know anything about these charges against Herman Cain to make any fair judgment other than the testimony of one accuser and some other accusations which we don't even know what they actually are actually accusing.

Herman Cain is completely unqualified to be President of the United States. That is obvious. He didn't even know that China had nuclear weapons which I knew when I was in the second grade 47 years ago. He does not know anything about any of the important issues that face America and the world. And furthermore, Godfather Pizza CEO? Damn, could he at least have been the head of Pizza Hut!! That's a qualification to be Commander and Chief of the greatest military empire the has world ever known and essentially the political leader of the whole world? This surely must be a joke!!

There are plenty of reasons why one could question the character of Herman Cain. For a rich man who claims to be a Christian to claim that it is the fault of the poor to be poor shows a totally lack of the most basic attribute of human decency and empathy.

But we don't know enough about ANY of these sexual accusations against Herman Cain. We simply don't. If accusations were made against President Clinton that were probably not true - Simple fairness tells me that we have to withhold judgment about Mr. Cain until and unless we know considerably more than we know now.

[whathehell]

58. Please...We know that he's had at least four complaints and a couple of cash "settlements".

The odds are against them being all "false"..:eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

60. Bill Clinton had all kinds of accusations against him - and a settlement of $850,000

with Paula Jones. I don't believe that Bill Clinton harassed or assaulted Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey even though they both claim he did and he settled with Ms. Jones for $850,000. I don't believe Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her either. There are details that cast a lot of doubt on all three of those cases. But if I didn't know any further details and judged only on what they said - I would have thought he was guilty. We don't have any real details regarding Herman Cains accusations. Forgive me, but I believe that when anyone - anyone including the devil himself is accused of something it is wise to reserve judgment until more facts are known. But if one prefers to go on the assumption that Democrats are innocent until proven guilty and Republicans are guilty until proven innocent one is practicing the same level of intellectual honesty as Fox News.

[whathehell]

81. Yes, and at least one that he denied (Monica Lewinsky) turned out to be TRUE, didn't it?

another was Gennifer Flowers, who he admitted having

sex with ("once") under deposition.

I'm inclined to think one or two others might have been as well.

In any case, there's an important difference between Bill Clinton

and Herman Caine...Bill Clinton was POTUS....A position of that

significance will tend to bring out crazies....When Herman Caine

was accused, he was only president of the National Restaurant Association

and, as such, had a substantially lower profile.


In addition, your first post on this mentioned "evidence" when there WAS no evidence

and rarely IS in a situation like this...Men rarely grope women or make

lewd remarks to them in public (construction workers excepted!)

Sorry, bro, but as a young attractive woman living in a big city I experienced

a LOT of sexual harassment, including gropes, so you'll forgive ME if

I'm not overly inclined toward "the benefit of doubt" when it comes to men

-- especially powerful ones -- charged multiple times with the same offense.:eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. as long as you are holding Bill Clinton to the same standard that you hold Herman Cain

That is exceptional on this forum and I cannot argue. Except to the extent that I believe that anyone accused of anything is entitled to a presumption of innocence unless proven guilty.

No doubt many exceptionally attractive men in exceptional positions of power assume that their advances are desired and are genuinely confused when rebutted. I have never been in such a position to allow me that delusion.

[whathehell]

84. That's real nice of you, Doug

but frankly, I find your "expertise" on the issue of sexual harassment

to be a tad wanting....Like a lot of men on DU,

you seem to want desperately to give men a "pass" on this issue,

but it doesn't fly.

The notion that men are "genuinely confused" about the nature of "advances"

like those attributed to Herman Caine is laughable.

Hint: Sticking your hand up someone's skirt and/or pulling their

head into your crotch is not the "desired" response of someone

seeking career advice, such as Ms. Bialek, WHATEVER your level of personal

or occupational "attractiveness".:rofl:


Sorry, bro, but I can only imagine that you are either very young or VERY naive.

[Douglas Carpenter]

88. it has been at least three decades since anyone has accused me of being very young

Perhaps it is naive to believe that one should withhold judgment regarding accusations that have only been made public for a few days and one doesn't yet know very much about those accusations, yet anyway. If Mr. Cain did do what he is accused of doing then that is truly despicable and certainly does not deserve a pass, him or anyone else. Do I think these accusations or at least some of them are quite probably true? I would have to say yes, I think that probably is the case. But it has only been a few days since any of us even heard of these accusations and we don't yet have a very clear picture. I would believe in the same naive principle about withholding judgment even if the accusation was murder and there were reported to be eye witnesses. But be it as it may, I will go on being naive for what limited time I have left in this world and continue in my naivete withholding judgment against anyone, friend or foe, who is accused by anyone of anything on the principle that one should wait until more is known, however naive that may be.

[redqueen]

61. Yes, it is sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment can include assault. It involves both, just as with some of the allegations against Clinton.

[Lance_Boyle]

62. No. Let's get this straight. The woman CLAIMS she was sexually assaulted.

For whatever reason she chose not to pursue charges against the alleged perpetrator, and now the statute of limitations has run. At this point she's bandwagon jumping, whether in search of a belated payday or just her 15 minutes. But the person she's accusing won't be tried in a court of law, so all we'll ever have is a CLAIM of ALLEGED assault. Innocent until proven guilt in a court of law and all that jazz. Used to be important to Americans.

[WingDinger]

63. Innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is for criminal proceedings.

This is politics. The standard is, the court of public opinion. You dont get to plead the fifth there. You dont get off on a technicality. As far as a proponderance of evidence, we have four ladies. At least two of which, recieved payouts for their harm. Judged by his underlings. That they tried to handle it without involving Cain, hints at sweeping it under the rug. That Cain said first he knew nothing, then he knew a little, then, his wife was most pissed, knowing that ALLLLLLLLL the charges against him were bogus. Speaks to his integrity.

Do yopu want your fifteen minutes to be yanking your head and shoving up under your skirt? It is humiliating. That she did nothing about it legally, is fully understandable. She had no claim to harm. He didnt leave bruises. He didnt hire her, so couldnt fire her. Did not call all his friends to get her blackballed.

In our legal system, at least the civil side, if you have no harm, no viable penalties. Unless you get them on youtube. She could not get a lawyer to handle it on contingency, till it was worth pursuing.

Save your saving the republic for real constitutional crisis. Not a book tour fool, playing candidate. He deserves all that is coming his way. This is how we have always vetted presidents.

[Lance_Boyle]

68. She is accusing him of a crime.

If her accusation is false, she is guilty of libel. That's the path I would take were I in Cain's position. Sue her for libel. Let the truth of the matter be determined in court. If Cain truly believes he is not guilty, that is.

[WingDinger]

69. If every public figure sued the Nat. Enquirer, that is all courts would do.

What ever happened to tort reform and penalizing frivolous lawsuits?

I believe Allred is saying to Hermie, make my day.

[Lance_Boyle]

70. He can't sue the media, assuming the media is using the correct terminology

regarding his ALLEGED offense. He can sue the accuser, who is stating as a fact that he committed this crime.

[WingDinger]

72. He has already threatened to sue Politico.

[Lance_Boyle]

74. Did politico use the proper terminology or did they publish as fact

the unproven allegations? That's the difference between reporting an allegation and committing libel. If Politico reported as fact the unproven allegations, Politico may well have libeled the man and they *should* be sued as a lesson in journalistic responsibility. At least that would get the facts of the matter out in a court of law instead of the court of public opinion, where libel and slander are very real possibilities.

[WingDinger]

75. It says he was accused. Nothing wrong with that.

[Lance_Boyle]

80. Do not read Politico so I'll have to take your word for it.

But my point stands. If Cain thinks he has been libeled by any accuser he can sue her for it and then the facts will come out. Until then it is a he-said, she-said finger-pointing game of no real significance.

[LanternWaste]

67. Some see band-wagon jumping, others see patience

Some see band-wagon jumping, others see patience and an opportune time many years later.

I imagine we see what we want to see... :shrug:

[Erose999]

71. Maybe she didn't want to risk her career at the time. she was obviously in Cain's network and laying

an accusation on him might have closed some doors. Also, at that time, Cain was just head of some lobbying organization. Outside of the restaurant business world he was a nobody. Bilek may not have known there were other women.

Fast forward 15 years later and he's running for POTUS. And there are other women who faced the same treatment or worse who can't speak out because of non-disclosure agreements. She sees the benefit of speaking out where the other victims cannot.

Perhaps she was OK with having a pig like Cain run some restaurant lobbying group, but not OK with him as her president?

[seabeyond]

73. faced the same treatment or worse who can't speak out

that is how i can see it.

[WingDinger]

76. Almost had to testify against boss/owner, when he grabbed coworkers crotch thru shorts, ripping

a hole, and grabbing his testicles, causing a torsion hernia. the three brother owners banded together, and decided to call him insane. And this was a guy that had his testicles wrenched. He left immediately, as the boss owner said he would be fired for leaving. He was.

I didnt relish being blackballed in my trade. And I wasnt even the one with wrenched balls.

[seabeyond]

77. ya. from personal experiences i dont share on du, lol

i have learned that people react in all kinds of ways for a reason. they may not be handled the way i would, or the way i would like them to be. but i can understand.

and you are right.

who wants to get in the middle of something you described. and sometimes we have to. or we ought to. then again, sometimes people can't/won't and i understand. whether i like it or not.

[KansDem]

66. Remember, she wasn't suppose to speak to him unless he spoke first!

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/what-its-work-herman-cain

And then there was that e-mail to the staff about traveling in a car with Mr. Cain: "Do not speak to him unless you are spoken to," the memo said.

"I found it odd," said a former staff member who liked to prep Mr. Cain for appearances while driving. The aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, quit not long afterward, citing the e-mail as one of the deciding factors...

Setting up offices was also something of a trial. "When I told people, 'You'll be getting offices and phone lines,' I'd have to postpone that," the former staff member in Iowa said. "It was like they were running for sophomore class president."

Mr. Hall added, "We couldn't even get our own e-mail addresses," for the campaign.

So it would have been impossible for her to say "no" if he didn't speak first...:sarcasm:

[samsingh]

79. first- is she telling the truth?

is there any proof?

[whathehell]

85. What would the odds be on all FIVE lying?

Duh...:eyes:

[samsingh]

87. i actually believe her and the others